FCO Burma

Statements in full that I have collected from the Foreign Office that relate to Burma.
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

BURMA: AUNG SAN SUU KYI - ARTICLE BY IAN PEARSON (16/06/2005)
BURMA: 60TH BIRTHDAY OF AUNG SAN SUU KYI - ARTICLE BY FOREIGN OFFICE MINISTER IAN PEARSON
19 June marks the 60th birthday of Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese pro-democracy leader and Nobel peace laureate. She will spend the day detained in her house in Rangoon, just as she has spent over 3,500 previous days - isolated and cut off from her many friends and supporters in Burma and around the world. She was arrested most recently in May 2003, after a brief period of freedom, and has been detained ever since.The British Government, the European Union, the United Nations and our partners in Asia have all repeatedly called for the Burmese authorities to release Aung San Suu Kyi, her National League for Democracy colleague U Tin Oo, and the more than 1,300 political prisoners suffering far worse conditions in Burma’s jails. I do so again today. Every day Aung San Suu Kyi remains in detention is one more day when the Burmese authorities defy their neighbours and the rest of the international community; and one more day when they fail to live up to their international commitments to release her.This attitude is self-defeating. Aung San Suu Kyi's standing continues to grow, even while she is locked away from the world. She continues to inspire the people of Burma, and all those around the world who share her commitment to peaceful democratic transition, national reconciliation and respect for human rights in Burma. Military governments have ruled Burma since 1962. In 1990, the first national elections for 30 years were held. The National League for Democracy, led by Aung San Suu Kyi, won an overwhelming majority, but the military refused to recognise the results. This patent lack of democracy, and the grave human rights situation, makes Burma of great importance to the UK and to our international partners.
There is currently a climate of insecurity in Burma. The Burmese military claim that only they can protect and unify the country. Yet their current policies are having the opposite effect. By failing to negotiate sustainable political solutions, they increase instability and the risk of a return to fighting in ethnic minority regions. This will have negative effects – more drug trafficking, more refugees - on Burma’s neighbours like Thailand and China. We know Burma's neighbours share our deep concern about the current situation; and we will continue to work closely with them to promote peace, democracy and national reconciliation in Burma. Sadly, peaceful transition seems a long way away. We are deeply concerned by the recent deterioration in the security situation. I strongly condemn the terrorist attacks of 7 May, in which at least 23 innocent people were killed and many more badly injured. I would like to convey my deepest sympathies to the families of the victims. We are also concerned by the military pressure being exerted on the ethnic ceasefire groups by the Burmese authorities and their proxies; by the impasse in the ceasefire negotiations with the Karen National Union, one of Burma's many ethnic nationalities; by the arrests of leaders of another ethnic nationality, the Shan; and by the continuing harassment of opposition figures. More widely, the Burmese authorities’ appalling human rights record has been condemned by successive UN General Assembly resolutions. These resolutions demonstrate the international community's determination to ensure Burma lives up to its human rights commitments. We have also seen earlier this month the grave concern of the members of the International Labour Organisation at Burma's failure to live up to its commitments to eliminate forced labour.
So the prospect for positive change, leading to a better, more prosperous life for the Burmese people, remains bleak. What can we do about it?We must not fool ourselves into thinking there is a simple answer. There is no magic wand we can wave; and no final missing piece of the jigsaw which, if only we could find it, would produce a perfect picture. The solution lies in the hands of the Burmese people themselves, and cannot be forced from outside.But there is a lot we can still do, working closely with others:
We can support the UN Secretary General, his Special Representative, Tan Sri Razali, and the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro. They have a positive role to play in Burma's future - which is why the Burmese authorities’ refusal to allow them to visit is all the more disappointing;
We will continue to work with our partners in the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), to support their efforts to press Burma towards positive change and real dialogue. There is no doubt that ASEAN countries are deeply conscious of the urgent need for concrete results from the Burmese authorities, rather than more empty promises. The prospect of Burmese chairmanship of ASEAN in July 2006 makes the need for results all the more pressing. I look forward to discussing Burma with ASEAN partners during my first visit to the region at the end of July.
We also welcome the active and constructive role being taken by ASEAN Parliamentarians, who have called for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and other political prisoners and for national reconciliation.
We will work with our EU partners during our EU Presidency to press for concrete progress. We will continue our twin track policy, as set out in the EU Common Position on Burma:
targeted measures aimed at members of the military government who are responsible for the current situation in Burma, and members of their families, cronies and others who benefit from the regime's corruption; and
assistance to the poorest sections of society who suffer most from the Burmese government's failed policies. Collectively, the EU and its member countries including the UK have an expanding programme of assistance to the people of Burma – NOT the government - totalling about £25 million which supports in particular human rights, health, education and community development. This is expanding in view of the serious needs. We also welcome the support provided by the Global Fund to fight HIV/Aids, TB and Malaria in Burma. All three diseases are widespread in the country which, if they are not controlled, will undermine its future potential.
We can also talk to the Burmese authorities, as the EU Troika did most recently in Kyoto on 6 May. But the dialogue must be two-way: the Burmese too must listen and respond to our concerns. Britain is the leading bilateral EU donor to the people of Burma, and expects to spend at least £7 million a year over the next three years. This assistance focuses on health, in particular HIV/AIDS (£10 million over three years), education, rural livelihoods and the transition to democracy. Our aim is to both respond to humanitarian needs, and help build the capacity of the Burmese people to address the wider challenges facing their country. For the transition to democracy to be successful, it will be essential to unlock the talent and potential within the country. And that includes unlocking Aung San Suu Kyi and the 1300 political prisoners languishing in Burma’s jails, and allowing them to play a role in national reconciliation.

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬


FOREIGN SECRETARY CALLS FOR RELEASE OF BURMESE POLITICAL PRISONER AUNG SAN SUU KYI (16/06/2005)
The Foreign Secretary Jack Straw today repeated his call for the release of political prisoner Aung San Suu Kyi, who has spent over nine years in detention in Burma. She will be 60 years old on 19 June.The Foreign Secretary said:'On Sunday Aung San Suu Kyi will spend her 60th birthday under house arrest, cut off from family, friends and political colleagues. Her treatment by the Burmese authorities is indefensible and I urge them to release her and the 1,300 other political prisoners immediately.
'The Burmese authorities should begin a genuine process of reform and political dialogue - involving all political parties and ethnic groups - to achieve national reconciliation so that the Burmese people can at last live in peace and freedom. Releasing Aung San Suu Kyi is not only a moral imperative but a crucial step to start this process.'I remain concerned by the rising level of violence and intimidation in Burma, including the terrorist attacks in Rangoon on 7 May, which killed at least 23 people. 'The UK Government will continue to support the poorest and most vulnerable people in Burma. We will also continue to work with our partners in the region, and through the UN, to persuade the Burmese authorities to live up to their stated commitments and obligations to the people of Burma.' Notes for editors
Aung San Suu Kyi is the daughter of the assassinated head of Burma's first post-war government and the woman who led the victorious National League for Democracy campaign in the 1990 election. She won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991.
The UK is the leading EU bilateral donor to the people of Burma and is set to spend at least £7 million a year over the next three years on health (including combating HIV), education and rural livelihood projects.
Read FCO Minister Ian Pearson’s article on Burma at www.fco.gov.uk/assk

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬


PEARSON: EXTENSION OF DETENTION OF DAW AUNG SAN SUU KYI (28/11/2005)
'The UK as Presidency of the EU is deeply concerned about reports that the Burmese regime has extended the house arrest of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.'We join with other members of the international community in calling on the government of Burma/Myanmar to release Aung San Suu Kyi and all other political prisoners. This will help facilitate an open and genuine dialogue involving all ethnic nationality and political groups in Burma/Myanmar, in the interests of national reconciliation and the resolution of Burma/Myanmar's long-standing political and humanitarian problems.'

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

BURMA: FOREIGN SECRETARY COMMENTS ON PINHEIRO REPORT TO UNHRC (12/12/2007)
The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, commented on Professor Sergio Pinheiro's report to the UN Human Rights Council on 11 December:
'After being denied access for four years, UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Burma, Professor Sergio Pinheiro, was finally allowed to visit Burma between 11 and 15 November. His report to the Human Rights Council is disturbing. His findings document grave concerns about human rights abuses in Burma. His report calls on the government of Burma to take a set of detailed immediate measures to address these concerns. He also makes clear the need for an international Commission of Inquiry or fact finding mission to visit Burma to investigate September's events in a more comprehensive manner. I urge the government of Burma to comply with these recommendations.'

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

RECORD OF BURMA STAKEHOLDER MEETING (03/01/2008)


Foreign Office Minister, Meg Munn, hosted a meeting of Burma stakeholders on Tuesday 18 December at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The stakeholder group was made up of various parliamentary, non-governmental, academic and local Burmese organisations with an interest in the wellbeing of the Burmese people.
The stakeholder group heard presentations from Meg Munn MP and Charles Petrie, formerly United Nations Resident Co-ordinator in Burma. The debate that followed covered the domestic and international political fallout of the demonstrations and subsequent crackdown by the Burmese regime, thoughts on new strategies to encourage political progress in the country, and the effect sanctions were having on the regime.
Burma Stakeholders Meeting 18 December 2007
Introduction
Foreign & Commonwealth Office Minister Meg Munn MP chaired a meeting of Burma Stakeholders on 18 December at the FCO. The stakeholder group was made up of various parliamentary, non-governmental, academic and local Burmese organisations with an interest in the well-being of the Burmese people. Charles Petrie, former UN Resident Co-ordinator in Rangoon, offered his insights into the situation on the ground. This meeting followed the first Burma Stakeholders meeting on 3 October. This summary records the range of viewpoints and matters raised in a non-attributive manner. The FCO thanks everyone who has contributed to the group and looks forward to continuing these exchanges in 2008.
Summary
1. Meg Munn set out the UK government's position on Burma and current diplomatic activity. The UK sought to keep Burma high on the international and public agenda, maintaining pressure on the Burmese regime to open full and genuine dialogue with opposition and ethnic groups. From the Prime Minister down, the government had engaged with partners in the European Union (EU), the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and at the United Nations (UN) to press for movement towards these goals. Most recently, Meg Munn had spoken at the EU-ASEAN Summit about the need for international action.
2.Charles Petrie was disappointed to leave Burma when the UN bodies had so much to achieve there. Three factors had set the recent crisis apart :
Poverty: many ordinary Burmese had taken to the streets because of the increasingly difficult economic situation they found themselves in. Although the monks had helped lead the protest, the prevalent poverty and lack of economic opportunities had sustained it.
Violence against monks: the regime's action against religious bodies had been a deeply traumatic experience for the country, including for individual members of the military who had taken part in the crackdown. At present the religious community appeared subdued by the violence, but the longer-term implications for the regime were potentially detrimental to the regime's authority, given its professed stance as protector of Buddhism and Burma's devout nature.
Repression after the protests: the regime had used media coverage of the protest to identify protesters for arrest and abuse. Due to the broader social-spectrum supporting the demonstrations, the arrests had hit all Burmese social classes, castigating ordinary people among the regime's 'usual suspects'. During the 1988 protests, the regime's action had been directed at the relatively small politically-active class. This time, many more people had experienced repression.
3.A wide range of matters was raised in questions put to Meg Munn and Charles Petrie It was suggested that the regime was in the middle of a transition with a potential split emerging between the old and new guards. One participant pointed to the regime's concern at 'foreign instigation of the protests' as an example of the regime's vulnerability. The regime's statements and actions after the demonstrations had appeared designed for domestic military consumption, rather than for the international community.
4. Despite differences between the old and new military guards, in public the military was maintaining a united front. It was hard to identify with certainty who the new guard were. Over time differences may become more pronounced, as the 'new guard' dealt with the political fall-out from repression and the relationship with the monks.
5. One participant asked what effect sanctions were having in the country. Charles Petrie's assessment was that individuals were primarily affected by economic mismanagement, not by the sanctions. He felt that some sanctions were hurting regime members and associates. The impact was nonetheless finite. Sanctions were not an end in themselves, but could prove an effective tool alongside other initiative. They also sent a political message about the international community's concern and intent. One group urged a 'tightening of the noose' by applying further sanctions. This was questioned by another participant, who doubted whether, without the support of China and India, the concept of a noose had any practical validity.
6. Burma's economic development had to be viewed against the backdrop of Asian growth. Its model was of a patrimonial society combined with an unreformed bureaucracy. Burma had failed to complete its transition to a free market economy.
7. The current situation presented new challenges and opportunities for diplomatic pressure. China and India had vested interests in a stable Burma. Current political structures in Burma were not however sustainable. One participant argued that India needed to bring its influence to bear more clearly.
8. NGOs in the group felt in an increasingly difficult position. The regime's tendency to be uncooperative towards groups providing aid meant that NGOs were unsure if they should welcome increased diplomatic and/or economic pressure on Burma. Currently, NGOs had achieved a certain level of access with impoverished communities in the country, which they were reluctant to lose. The UN Development Programme's hotline and UN taskforce, were having some success in communicating the reality of situation on the ground to regime members.
9. One NGO believed there had been no change in the regime's tactics. They had ridden out crises like this in the past, and would do so again. The NGO suggested that we therefore had to think more constructively about a rolling process of sanctions and continued debate at the UN Security Council.
10. On human rights, Meg Munn expressed the UK's support for UN Special Rapporteur, Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, his report to the Human Rights Council (HRC) and the subsequent HRC Resolution. She looked forward to Professor Pinheiro paying an early return visit to Burma to continue his work.
11. Participants were informed about the 'Friends of the UN Secretary General' Group on Burma due to meet for the first time the following day. This would be an important diplomatic mechanism to keep international attention focussed on Burma. A participant asked about the personal role of UN Secretary General, Ban Ki Moon. Meg Munn explained that the Secretary General was very much engaged on Burma but he would have to judge very carefully the right time to visit Burma.
12. Meg Munn concluded the session by thanking all participants. She reiterated the UK government's commitment to change in Burma and that meetings such as this one would continue to influence the UK approach.

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬


FREEDON OF INFORMATION ENQUIRY

Thank you for your e-mail of 22 November to Ann Hastings, in which you ask whether it might be possible to obtain a list of those who form the Burmese Stakeholder's Group.
I am writing to confirm that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) does hold information which falls within the scope of your request. As the group members' names are not already in the public domain, we are required to seek the approval from those concerned in order to release their names. The names, and organisations where applicable, of those who gave their consent are as follows:
Mark Farmaner Acting Director, Burma Campaign UK
Martin Moreland Chairman, Prospect Burma
Dr Win Naing Chair, National League for Democracy, UK Branch
Aung Naing Oo Vahu Development Institute
Zaw Oo Director, Development Institute
Paul Stumpf
Derek Tonkin Chairman, Network Myanmar
Justin Wintle Freelance author, Aung San Suu Kyi biographger
Harn Yanghwe Director, EU Burma Office

Some of the information you have requested is personal data relating to third parties, the disclosure of which would contravene one of the data protection principles. In such circumstances sections 40(2) and (3) of the Freedom of Information Act apply. In this case, our view is that disclosure would breach the first data protection principle. This states that personal data should be processed fairly and lawfully. It is the fairness aspect of this principle which, in our view, would be breached by disclosure. In such circumstances section 40 confers an absolute exemption on disclosure. There is, therefore, no public interest test to apply.
If you are not satisfied with the decisions made in relation to your request to the FCO, you may ask for an internal review. If you wish to complain, please let me know within 40 working days of the date of this letter

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

BURMA: FOREIGN SECRETARY S STATEMENT ON 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF BURMESE INDEPENDENCE (04/01/2008)
'Today marks the 60th Anniversary of Burma's independence. We congratulate the people of Burma on this historic landmark.
But for 45 of the last 60 years Burma has been under military rule. The brutal suppression of peaceful demonstrations last autumn was a sad reminder of the extent to which the Burmese people's aspirations for democracy, stability and prosperity have been frustrated. They deserve far better.
We call once more upon the Burmese regime to embrace the path of constructive dialogue that Daw Aung San Suu Kyi has called for. Only through a process of genuine national reconciliation can a better future for the people of Burma be realised.
The UK remains committed to international action on Burma. We support the efforts of the UN Secretary General's Special Envoy to Burma, Ibrahim Gambari and we are working closely with our EU partners to bring pressure for change to bear on the regime.'

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

Aid to Burma: David Miliband speaks to the BBC (24/05/2008)
The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, and the US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice spoke with the BBC's Kim Ghattas on Friday 23 May. Speaking before the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon's announcement that the Burmese generals have agreed to admit all foreign aid workers, they emphasised the importance of keeping up pressure on the military regime.
Foreign Secretary: Well, I think the tragedy is that for some people it's already too late and it's certainly too little compared to the needs, but we've got to use the opportunity that exists, 4 days ago there wasn't a visit by the UN Secretary General, 4 days ago there wasn't a pledging conference, 4 days ago we didn't have, I think it's now, 43 or 45 flights that have got in. They have. We've got to keep pushing that door open and working to ensure that those desperate people get the help that they need, but the aid agencies themselves I think we should listen to, they say that the danger of their job is that actually, especially with all the water that's there, that's not going to get to the people who need it and may even injure some of those there. So, of course, they'll keep looking at everything. The French government have got a ship with thousands of tonnes of food off the coast and they can't get it in, that's why they're trying to work with the Burmese authorities to get it into the delta.Kim Ghattas, Interviewer: Did Western countries make a mistake at the very beginning in addressing this when they went on, very harsh in terms of criticism of the Burmese authorities and the way they were handling this, this issue, put off the military regime? Wouldn't it have been better to try to approach this through and from the very beginning knowing that Burma would not be open to Western aid?Condoleezza Rice: Well, I think we have to put the responsibilities where the responsibility is and it's on the Burmese government. Now, it's a quite unusual situation actually that you have a country in this desperate state with its population, and the circumstances that this population is in. And you get a kind of strong, cold face about people who just want help. We've said very clearly, this is not about politics - everyone knows that we have difficulties with the Burmese regime - this is not about politics, this is trying to do something to help people. And we would have hoped that the regime in Burma would have seen it in that light, so I think the responsibility does, does not rest with the international community that was just trying to help. But that said, we continue to try to make our contacts through countries that have good relations with Burma, and, as I said, we went so far as to try to develop a direct military-to-military link which helped some in loosening the restrictions on, on assistance.
Transcript Ends

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

Extension of house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi (27/05/2008)
Commenting on the decision by the Burmese government to extend the house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, the Foreign Secretary David Miliband said:
'I was saddened, if not surprised, to learn that the Burmese Government has, once again, decided to extend the house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi. Along with some 2,000 other political prisoners in Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi lost her freedom for simply expressing a desire to bring democracy to Burma. She has now spent more than twelve of the last eighteen years in detention. That she will spend her 63rd birthday next month in total isolation is an indictment of the regime.While our immediate focus is on relieving the suffering caused by the recent cyclone, restoration of democracy in Burma is still vital for that country's long-term future. I urge the Burmese government to release Aung San Suu Kyi and allow her to play her rightful role in the process of genuine national reconciliation.'


¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

Burma: Sentencing of democracy activists (11/11/2008)

Bill Rammell commented on the sentences given to fourteen members of the '1988 student group' in Burma. He said:
'I am deeply concerned to learn that the Burmese regime has sentenced fourteen members of the '1988 student group' to 65 year terms. Those detained have done nothing other than exercise their right to express themselves and have at all times underlined their willingness to work with others for a better Burma.
This once again underlines the need for a genuine and inclusive political process. I therefore reiterate the recent call by the Council of the European Union for the lifting of restrictions placed on political parties and the early release of those in detention, including Aung San Suu Kyi. There can be nothing approaching free elections until these steps are taken.'
Notes for Editors
Military governments have ruled Burma since 1962.
In 1988, pro-democracy protests were brutally crushed by the military. Around 3,000 people were killed, mainly Burma's young generation.
Some of the fourteen members in question were arrested during last year's violent crackdown on peaceful protests. Others have been arrested more recently.